God is GOOD and I will defend Him. A Challenge for Atheists

A person can read the Bible and get ideas that can lead to inspired thoughts. I am not denying that. There are instructive proverbs and rebukes
of misdeeds. There is a place in the New Testament that says something like that. Revelation has a place that says to worship Him who created Heaven
and Earth and all the things in them. I believe the Creator was good and made a good world. I believe God wanted to have a people who followed Him and
so God lead these people who would be lead, along a path to eventually make a larger people who would be the light of the world. Right now, I believe
the leadership is in the hands of Jesus who takes those from all the world, those who would follow him. The O.T. tells of how the people became a bit
troublesome and demanded to have a king. God relented and gave them a king. We have the same sort of thing today but it is a kingship of a global
type, and he stands where he does because the people are not able to properly understand God. Now once this kingdom is established, it is our duty to
recognize him as such and to declare him Lord, and too late to go back and say, We changed our minds and want to be directly under God. Following God
today means following the King he has set before us,

I agree, men learns by doing, never once has God come into the equation; you just claim to have revealed knowledge; and your only source is the bible;

This statement is a fallacy. First of all, it would be impossible for man to put God out of the equation if God was never a possibility to begin with.
We would have no idea that God might possibly exist if the idea that he did exist didn't come first.

Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false? I guess you would quote some famous philosopher to back it up, but that to
would still be just man's opinion and could never be supported by any kind of facts other than theory?

I agree, men learns by doing, never once has God come into the equation; you just claim to have revealed knowledge; and your only source is the bible;

This statement is a fallacy. First of all, it would be impossible for man to put God out of the equation if God was never a possibility to begin with.
We would have no idea that God might possibly exist if the idea that he did exist didn't come first.

Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false? I guess you would quote some famous philosopher to back it up, but that to
would still be just man's opinion and could never be supported by any kind of facts other than theory?

This statement is a fallacy. First of all, it would be impossible for man to put God out of the equation if God was never a possibility to
begin with

Incorrect; your statement relies on the assumption of causation, and of a deity being the cause. That's fallacious.

Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false?

Like I said, your evidence is no different than others. You rely on the words of man which could never be proven. Or should I take this as fact since
it's posted on Wikipedia? Moreover, who really believes this other than atheist?

Like I said, your evidence is no different than others. You rely on the words of man which could never be proven. Or should I take this as fact since
it's posted on Wikipedia? Moreover, who really believes this other than atheist?

I take it for granted, that you must be familiar with the formally defined differences between 'subjective' and 'objective' positions, and that
you actually operate WITH such differences in mind.

And while you (via epistemologically) arguments eventually can claim, that neither 'subjective' nor 'objective' claims can be ultimately validated
(i.e. compared to an 'absolute reality' as a measure-tape), you'll end up with the same distinctions, as you started with (subjective vs.
objective) considering the available actual knowledge you can refer to, even as a temporary measure-tape.

Abrahamic theists often tend to forget or ignore, that religion and its method(s) results in myriads of 'answers', so the religionists STILL have
diverging, and self-contradictory positions. It's not only a question of religion vs. science. It's also a question of religion vs. religion, i.e.
we are back to subjective claims.

So even if you go the long way of epistemology and conclude, that there is no absolute reality to rely on, every single human being (and everything
else) relate to what appears to be a 'relative reality' of outmost importance. You HAVE to relate to gravity, even if it conceptually and in an
abstract sense possibly is a 'lower' level of existence.

But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general
(non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used
practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having
to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.

Quote: ["Moreover, who really believes this other than atheist?"]

You could, for the fun of it, try to DISPROVE the flying spaghetti monster, who REALLY is very, very good.

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach
it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself
create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements
of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the
same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it
so, he only points out that it is so."

And this is a great point you make. We cannot simply know by the words on a page. Those words must be living. In other words, they must demonstrate
what they say. The very first three verses of the Bible say that God created. So what, right? Well, they also say how He created? Big deal, right?
Well, they also say precisely what Einstein says about physics, that Time, Space, Matter and Energy are responsible. Our own sense of things would
also say that information is in abundance in the universe. So, we need to demonstrate that God uses all of what we can observe in His process.

In the beginning (TIME), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy and wisdom and knowledge and
enlightenment and the separation of darkness from light; good from evil). Light is multilateral.

By our own definition, God is three persons. He is the father (most often called the light). He is the Logos (Son or word of God). Plato and many
others referred to logos as a story telling, reason, intelligence, and so on. Wikipedia the word and you find that early philosophy claimed that this
word could not be defined because of what it actually means to our reality. Then you have the Holy Spirit (Consciousness).

Now, put it all together. The first three verses of the Bible give you Time, Space, Matter and Energy. Accident? No. The odds are impossible.

Add to this the fact that light is both a particle and a wave. The particle is carried by the wave. Jesus is referred to as the Logos, the prime
mover of creation to form. LOGOS. The story teller who divides good from evil and sets the laws in order. This word covers a large area by
definition. These are not our definitions, the belong to antiquity. If light is both a particle and a wave, and the wave carries the particle to
form, then we see that Christ is the LOGOS / Word /Wave.

Put the trinity of creation together. Energy / Force / Information (Consciousness) and you now have a working definition of physics that answers the
question of how energy becomes matter.

This is just the beginning of the Bible.

This is not merely theory, this is history revealing man's theory over time to match what was always there in the mirror.

Go one further.

God is one entity with three persons of creation. Father (Substance and Energy) / Son (creative force) / Holy Spirit (Consciousness)

Man is one entity with three persons of creation. We are Body (Substance) / Soul (Creative force) and Spirit (consciousness). We are God's image.
We are in God's image. Again, the Bible states as much. Science is blind to the consciousness part and the prime mover behind it all.

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;

This is not theory. This is history developing its own independent version called science and then looking back at the original written version.
This is called verification of theory.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

I agree, men learns by doing, never once has God come into the equation; you just claim to have revealed knowledge; and your only source is the bible;

This statement is a fallacy. First of all, it would be impossible for man to put God out of the equation if God was never a possibility to begin with.
We would have no idea that God might possibly exist if the idea that he did exist didn't come first.

Second, what sources can you point to that proves those passages are false? I guess you would quote some famous philosopher to back it up, but that to
would still be just man's opinion and could never be supported by any kind of facts other than theory?

But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general
(non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used
practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having
to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.

Yes. Science independently verifies that the Bible is accurate in its description of creation by the very physics that science claims as theory.
Since science does not use God in their equation, then God can stand alone. Compare both versions of creation and physics, as I just stated in the
last post, and you get verification. One is independent of the other. Each have had plenty of time to test.

"God is good" is a statement that relies on the ASSUMPTION that a deity exists; if you can't prove whether a deity exists; then you can't describe
human characteristicss of the deity; you are simply word conjuring.

Even as a Pantheist; you could not extract human emotions from nature; or the creator of nature.

But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general
(non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used
practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having
to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.

Yes. Science independently verifies that the Bible is accurate in its description of creation by the very physics that science claims as theory.
Since science does not use God in their equation, then God can stand alone. Compare both versions of creation and physics, as I just stated in the
last post, and you get verification. One is independent of the other. Each have had plenty of time to test.

Why is God good? Because He can be trusted to tell it like it is.

You have said: It's true, because it's true. That science doesn't include 'god' in it's equations doesn't imply, that 'god' is a freestanding
scientific concept. Science doesn't include Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster either.

But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general
(non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used
practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having
to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.

Yes. Science independently verifies that the Bible is accurate in its description of creation by the very physics that science claims as theory.
Since science does not use God in their equation, then God can stand alone. Compare both versions of creation and physics, as I just stated in the
last post, and you get verification. One is independent of the other. Each have had plenty of time to test.

Why is God good? Because He can be trusted to tell it like it is.

You have said: It's true, because it's true. That science doesn't include 'god' in it's equations doesn't imply, that 'god' is a freestanding
scientific concept. Science doesn't include Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster either.

It's still postulates.

Where are the claims of Zeus and Thor? Where are there books that are read by billions of people. The Spaghetti monster gives us no indication of
the physics he uses to create the universe. I say true to God because He makes the claims and then we back them up with our science. That's
verification. God is good. He only requires that you bring your pride to equality with your fellow man in love of others. God is one of the others.

We have filled up pages with how God is good. Where are all the threads from Thor and Zeus? Where are all the people defending Him. ATS is filled
with pages of people standing up in honor of God as well as those wishing to steal, kill and destroy His message, just as He says would happen in His
word. Israel is a nation again, just as He said would happen from the pages of His word. They are hated of all the nations around Her, just as God
has said. There is a world Government of tyranny forming, just as God predicted. They are hell bent on destroying God's kingdom, as stated in the
Bible. You see, I provide you a good word here.

These are all verification of God's word. And, as God predicts, the lost of this generation will fall under a delusion and believe the lie of
secular humanism. 1948 is your key date for this to begin. Read your history.

Thessalonians 2:

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation
through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through
grace,

But as always in such situations, feel free to present a systematic methodology of your own, which can be DEMONSTRATED to be of such general
(non-subjective) value, that its every step can be related to factual observation, is repeatable, is testable and pragmatically can be used
practically and be expected to lead to further similar accumulation of knowledge......I.e. we can 'build' safely from the existing instead of having
to resort to fables, allegories, patchwork-adjustings etc.

Yes. Science independently verifies that the Bible is accurate in its description of creation by the very physics that science claims as theory.
Since science does not use God in their equation, then God can stand alone. Compare both versions of creation and physics, as I just stated in the
last post, and you get verification. One is independent of the other. Each have had plenty of time to test.

Why is God good? Because He can be trusted to tell it like it is.

You have said: It's true, because it's true. That science doesn't include 'god' in it's equations doesn't imply, that 'god' is a freestanding
scientific concept. Science doesn't include Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster either.

It's still postulates.

Awareness is needed for perspective to be broadened. Science refuses the awareness of consciousness in the universe. It assumes some happy accident
or chemical reaction. No, the obvious conclusion is design and engineering at the nano level of complexity. It's in your face with proof and
verification. Nothing implied. Nature proclaims God's goodness. No postulates here other than perfect reasoning and good old common sense. Even
science uses common sense.

All scientists will reluctantly acknowledge one truth: No conceivable experiment can confirm all our theories. This places science in a position of
faith. In physics, no instrument can be made small enough to actually do accurate testing. Parallel universes are too distant, yet we know they are
there based on the work of countless researchers. Dead ends against common sense regarding them.

"the utter strangeness of a world that the human intellect was not designed for... physicists have had no choice but to rewire themselves. Where
intuition and common sense failed, they had to create new forms of intuition, mainly through the use of abstract mathematics." We've gone "out of
the range of experience." Leonard Susskind

As Huxley said, "Science is nothing more than trained and organized common sense."

It is obvious you are young. Hold your stand against God. You will need years of struggle in life to gain perspective. Life has a funny way of
leading us toward truth. If you broaden yourself out toward helping others and seeing them as equals, truth embraces you at every turn.

Sodom and Gomorrah would make the streets of Syria look like Disney. God is a just judge. We all expect justice when we are wronged by others.
Sodom was a place of ultimate pride where no justice existed. Hedonism was the rule. They were given over to everything that we stand against with
our understanding of freedom and justice; truth and liberty. I am not speaking to the lifestyle that was evident in the story. I am speaking of
where this self love leads. Lawlessness is what it is. Put it in perspective as you begin to see our rights disappear in America. As we walk away
from faith, tyranny steps in to steal, kill and destroy. Justice is necessary if men are to live free. Sodom was an example to all of us.

That's the problem with atheist, they never bring anything to the table that is believable, or can even be supported by anything. Don't you realize
that it's take faith to believe the way you do?

And what is faith? Take your pick, either way, there is no way around this fact.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
dictionary.reference.com...

So you see, your belief is really no different than mine, you believe what you believe without proof, but people who believe in God you say aren't
allowed to do so. How logical is that?

That's the problem with atheist, they never bring anything to the table that is believable, or can even be supported by anything.

The atheist isn't making the positive claim. Never once have i declared there is no God.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Don't you realize that it's take faith to believe the way you do?

Again, i'm not making a positive claim despite having a lack of evidence; that doesn't require any faith. I disbelieve that goblins, wizards and
unicorns exist; that doesn't take faith. It doesn't take faith to disbelieve there's a teapot factory on Pluto.

I'm being honest based on the knowledge humans currently have regarding the unknown; nothing.

I'm not making a leap of faith; i'm not jumping to conclusions and i'm not making positive claims and criticising my fellow man for being skeptical of
my extraordinary claims.

And what is faith? Take your pick, either way, there is no way around this fact.

Faith has many connotations.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Faith to a person or cause (e.g Your mother, or the scientific method) This kind of faith is justified, there is reason to have faith.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

A scientific hypothesis relies on having data, information, and it can be testable. Having faith is perhaps reasoned by sound mathematic formula
etc.

You missed this definition:

Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

The religious type of faith based on 0 evidence. Blind faith that is preached as a virtue.

That's the problem with atheist, they never bring anything to the table that is believable, or can even be supported by anything.

The atheist isn't making the positive claim. Never once have i declared there is no God.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Don't you realize that it's take faith to believe the way you do?

Again, i'm not making a positive claim despite having a lack of evidence; that doesn't require any faith. I disbelieve that goblins, wizards and
unicorns exist; that doesn't take faith. It doesn't take faith to disbelieve there's a teapot factory on Pluto.

I'm being honest based on the knowledge humans currently have regarding the unknown; nothing.

I'm not making a leap of faith; i'm not jumping to conclusions and i'm not making positive claims and criticising my fellow man for being skeptical
of my extraordinary claims.

And what is faith? Take your pick, either way, there is no way around this fact.

Faith has many connotations.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Faith to a person or cause (e.g Your mother, or the scientific method) This kind of faith is justified, there is reason to have faith.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

A scientific hypothesis relies on having data, information, and it can be testable. Having faith is perhaps reasoned by sound mathematic formula
etc.

You missed this definition:

Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

The religious type of faith based on 0 evidence. Blind faith that is preached as a virtue.

edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because:
(no reason given)

Wow, I guess you really don't believe anything. If you don't have faith or belief in anything then nothing you say could ever be right or proven as
fact. In other words, sounds to me like your the one with all the fairy tales. Let's be real here, over 90% of world's population believes in some
form of God. Do you really think that the little group you belong to will ever over throw such an idea without anything to back it up other than you
saying it's false? Trying to do so is a fallacy within itself.

Let's be real here, over 90% of world's population believes in some form of God. Do you really think that the little group you belong to will
ever over throw such an idea without anything to back it up other than you saying it's false? Trying to do so is a fallacy within itself.

Let's be real here, over 90% of world's population believes in some form of God. Do you really think that the little group you belong to will
ever over throw such an idea without anything to back it up other than you saying it's false? Trying to do so is a fallacy within itself.

Argumentum ad populum; Fallacious.

edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

Come on now, So I guess now your saying that 90% of the world's population suffers from sort of mass delusion, while you and the tiny group of atheist
are the smartest on the planet, yeah right. That's like me going into McDonald's and saying these are the nastiest burgers ever created, just because
I might think so doesn't mean the world will stop eating them. I'll just get laughed at by the masses.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.